Then why mention the "natural tendancy" as if there were not two such tendencies?

What I meant by “natural tendency” was that we are far more prone than otherwise to form opposite sex partnerships.

We may also be far more prone to form multiple partnerships too, so the single partnership is still not a clear natural tendency.

Quote:

At least, that’s what living in a cave taught me. You know we bonk our women on the head with a club and drag them back home by their hair when…well…whenever we feel inclined. You gotta be careful though. If you hit too hard or too often, they start to get stupid and you have to go find another one…assuming you don’t have multiple already…or you’re homosexual cave man.

I thought that was the goal .... keeps 'em docile. The early version of barefoot and pregnant.

Quote:

Quote:

But the law has to be equal across the country under the Constitution, so there has to be a single right for all.

Once again, there is.

No there is not. Homosexuals may be married in some states, but not others and the marriage is not recognized as being legal. That is by definitition a non-equalty under the law in the US, just as the laws against interacial marraige created a non-equality under the law.

Quote:

Quote:

Prejudice which had to be overcome.

For women and blacks, sure.

Quote:

Quote:

And not homosexuals? Have you really been living in a cave?

What part of “they already have the right” is unclear to you?

The part where they can choose the partner to whom they are attracted. It is a smokescreen and a lie.

Quote:

If one has the right to vote then that’s what they have the right to do as it is legally defined. A required input to the voting process is an election. If there is no election, they aren’t disenfranchised.

Yes they are if there is NEVER an election. The semantical gymnastics fail you here.

Quote:

They are able to do so when the circumstances are appropriate.

If the circumstances are never appropriate it is too bad? No, stacking the deck is still not going to work.

Quote:

Quote:

We had a custom practiced a certain way for as long as it was.

What custome was that? Not marriage because there have been plural marriages for as long as there has been the practice and that is not the definition currently being presented as THE new definition.

Quote:

An animal rights proponent sees some cow on video being abused every, say, 6 months or so, probably less frequently. Never mind the tens of thousands of others that were handled just fine, they call for the abrupt end to factory farming. It is defined by what they see.

And every day there are people arrested for animal abuse that the majority of us believe is abuse. How does that line of argument relate to the history showing a custom was always as it is now? Dog fighting was always a popular passtime, until it was viewed as abuse. The same for cock fighting. Not to forget the old standby of the bear baiting. All of which were customary and then overtime were not.

Quote:

Now, I think you know better than that, but perhaps I am mistaken. I know you didn’t grow up in Utah, so that can’t be it.

But I have seen a few polymarriage arrangements outside of Utah. I just used the common reference.

Quote:

You’re better off simply making the case that there was never a legal definition. Suggesting that we as a society didn’t understand our own custom because a relative few took exception to it, isn’t the way to go.

No, I am suggesting you do not know what the society had as a custom because you are excluding all of the society that did not fit the custom you wish to portray.

Quote:

Quote:

Giving my opinions in your statements?

Unless you think someone’s rights are compromised by legalizing gay marriage. Please let me know, I don’t want to speak for you if it is incorrect.

No, I do not think anyone's rights are compromised by not preventing gay marraige as it is already legal in the US, just not universally recognized.

Quote:

Quote:

You cannot grant homosexuals the right to marry without opening the option to others who stray from what's considered standard practice--those who engage in incest, polygamy, and chain marriages. Perhaps that's what they mean by "destroy". I simply see it as needless change.

Those are being practiced even now. Some are not caught and are considered legal while others are not even attempted to be made legal. It is legal in this state to marry your first cousin if you want.

Quote:

Yes, thank you, I know. You’ll have to excuse me. I’m too confused over factory farm abuse to see the forest for the trees.

So we are being treated to illustrations of your confusion.

Quote:

Quote:

THAT is the point, it has not been practiced the same since its inception.

Doesn’t have to be. Just has to be enough doing it the say way for a while such that it is effectively defined.

So why is it defined as such now when it was defined differently before and was changed? If the effective definition changed, then why is it etched in stone now? The logic does not follow.

Quote:

If it was so variable and unpredictable, there would be no controversy and we wouldn’t be having this discussion because gay marriage would have blended into the existing noise.

Yes we would because one segment of the population is rabidly anti-gay and they are very vocal.

Quote:

Quote:

No, just trying to get past the semantical gymnastics you have been presenting.

So you’re telling me that my opinion becomes prejudice soon as someone else attempts to practice something a different way?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Any change would have some opposition to prejudice against change whether consciously or not.

Quote:

Sure, okay, but I don’t recall a controversy of this magnitude over polygamous marriage, and that’s actually been around a while.

That might be due to the smaller number of such marriages or the historical opposition that drove them underground.

Quote:

That’s my indicator that you’re not in this for the rights aspect.

No, that is my focus.

Quote:

You’re doing it because you want there to be preferential treatment. Maybe you want it and don’t realize it.

What is "preferential treatment" about allowing the same right to others? That is an argument based in misrepresentation, sorry.

Quote:

Quote:

Despite that being the case, one still legally becomes the opposite sex.

Now we can just define one person in the gay marraige as a man and the other as a woman and you would be happy?

Quote:

We could, but that would be nonsensical, and I don’t support stuff like that.

More or less nonsensical that saying wanting the same rights is wanting preferntial treatment?

Quote:

Quote:

Because enough have an sufficient understanding of the custom to know what it is and isn't.

Why not just say because of bigotry and be done with it.

Quote:

Because it isn’t.

But most of the opposition is based solely on bigotry supported by relgious underpinnings.

Quote:

Quote:

Just like it was always one man and one woman? Except when it was not. The "custom" is variable and yet held as being absolute.

Yes, yet you as well as I know that variability doesn’t necessarily render one’s perception so out of focus that they can’t make distinctions.

But making distinctions involving the ignorance of that with which you disagree is still not a focused perception.

Quote:

Quote:

No one was imposing any beliefs before. It may appear that way, but it's not.

Homosexuals just decided to make themselves outcasts and deny themselves rights because they wanted to?

Quote:

I never said that there wasn’t discrimination. I’m saying that for the purpose of marriage, there isn’t now.

And you are wrong because there is an implied "Heterosexual" tacked onto the term "marriage" that is not there in reality.

Quote:

Quote:

They need it as much as I need an abortion, redefined or not.

I agree, the addition of the need for a partner of the opposite sex is not necessary.

[/quote]

Quote:

Not what I meant, you know that, but still true nonetheless. That’s the funny thing about all this. It’s purely subjective.

Not really, as the legal definition will eventually be soldified in the USSC and this will fall into the realm of "they did not actually think this way then did they" as we do with interacial marriage now.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

On a side note. When I have a long post on either of the computers at work, the lines from a certain point onward will "bounce" as I type. The lines being viewed will change to several lines above that, the attampt to use the mouse to higlight will cover a large portion of the previous portion of the post, and any keystrike will change that point of view. The computers at home do not do that. It really makes it hard for me to catch the typos at work as they disappear as I try to correct them. Not to say that I do not miss a fair number on the computers at home, but more amy show up when I am at work .... especially late at night.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

We may also be far more prone to form multiple partnerships too, so the single partnership is still not a clear natural tendency.

Over time, sure, for some at least. Others might even form multiple simultaneously. The other part of the “system” was the custom itself—one that the culture accepts as the norm. This has been a single partnership with one of the opposite sex.

Quote:

Quote:

Once again, there is.

No there is not. Homosexuals may be married in some states, but not others and the marriage is not recognized as being legal. That is by definitition a non-equalty under the law in the US, just as the laws against interacial marraige created a non-equality under the law.

Then let’s define marriage and we’re all set. Problem solved, eh?

Quote:

Quote:

What part of “they already have the right” is unclear to you?

The part where they can choose the partner to whom they are attracted. It is a smokescreen and a lie.

Perhaps for those who refuse to accept what the rest of the culture does.

Quote:

Yes they are if there is NEVER an election. The semantical gymnastics fail you here.

Hardly. If I’m the one refusing to cast my vote in an acceptable manner, the fault is mine. Wanting to vote here, now, in my man-cave doesn’t work out too well. I’m being disenfranchised. Where’s the outrage?

Timing is just as much a process input as tangible resources.

Quote:

If the circumstances are never appropriate it is too bad?

Maybe, maybe not. I can say that if “never” is the option, it’s only because one is limiting themselves.

Quote:

No, stacking the deck is still not going to work.

Yes, that stacked deck requiring me to vote at a certain place at a certain time is really starting to get to me.

Quote:

Quote:

An animal rights proponent sees some cow on video being abused every, say, 6 months or so, probably less frequently. Never mind the tens of thousands of others that were handled just fine, they call for the abrupt end to factory farming. It is defined by what they see.

And every day there are people arrested for animal abuse that the majority of us believe is abuse.

So then, why do we not shut down every operation where abuse occurs? You think we don’t take into custody folks who practice polygamy and that most folks agree that polygamy was the infraction?

Quote:

How does that line of argument relate to the history showing a custom was always as it is now?

It doesn’t, but then no one’s arguing how something always was. You’re attempting to portray my argument that way and countering that it is false because of the presence of exceptions. My argument is simply that marriage between one man and one woman is the cultural norm in the United States.

Quote:

Quote:

You’re better off simply making the case that there was never a legal definition. Suggesting that we as a society didn’t understand our own custom because a relative few took exception to it, isn’t the way to go.

No, I am suggesting you do not know what the society had as a custom because you are excluding all of the society that did not fit the custom you wish to portray.

I know some practiced it in ways that deviated from the norm, yes, and that we even have laws specifically against some forms. You see, the precedent is to outlaw that outside the norm, not to allow it. Aren’t you glad we haven’t started down that road?

Quote:

So why is it defined as such now when it was defined differently before and was changed? If the effective definition changed, then why is it etched in stone now? The logic does not follow.

I don’t think the effective definition has ever changed, at least not here in the US.

Quote:

Quote:

If it was so variable and unpredictable, there would be no controversy and we wouldn’t be having this discussion because gay marriage would have blended into the existing noise.

Yes we would because one segment of the population is rabidly anti-gay and they are very vocal.

Point being, a norm comprised of such a liberal acceptance of marriage precludes a population of anti-gay sufficient to cause the level of controversy we have over it now if any at all.

Quote:

Quote:

So you’re telling me that my opinion becomes prejudice soon as someone else attempts to practice something a different way?

In a manner of speaking, yes. Any change would have some opposition to prejudice against change whether consciously or not.

That’s very interesting considering how liberal I generally am on issues regarding homosexuality. I don’t think anything unconscious is going on…unintended perhaps, due to my beliefs on a subject not necessarily related—marriage.

Quote:

Quote:

Sure, okay, but I don’t recall a controversy of this magnitude over polygamous marriage, and that’s actually been around a while.

That might be due to the smaller number of such marriages or the historical opposition that drove them underground.

I see. We just need enough opposition to drive married homosexuals underground and everyone will shut up about rights?

Quote:

Quote:

That’s my indicator that you’re not in this for the rights aspect.

No, that is my focus.

Then I’m back to the previous point. Where’s the outrage over polygamists being “driven underground”? Is it that gay marriage proponents know that success will automatically bring out polygamists anyway? Will we repeal laws against polygamy? My take is that polygamists aren’t being given a second thought by anyone other than folks like myself.

Quote:

You’re doing it because you want there to be preferential treatment. Maybe you want it and don’t realize it.

Quote:

What is "preferential treatment" about allowing the same right to others?

It isn’t the same right. We’re offering something to one group that we’ve denied another by driving them “underground” and outlawing their practice.

Quote:

That is an argument based in misrepresentation, sorry.

Tell that to those who aren’t gay and still can’t get married because the law forbids it.

Quote:

Quote:

We could, but that would be nonsensical, and I don’t support stuff like that.

More or less nonsensical that saying wanting the same rights is wanting preferntial treatment?

Moreso, I’d say. What say you?

Quote:

But most of the opposition is based solely on bigotry supported by relgious underpinnings.

That doesn’t necessarily compromise the validity of their position. Inability to make a case doesn’t indicate the absence of one.

Quote:

But making distinctions involving the ignorance of that with which you disagree is still not a focused perception.

Agreement or the level of which with an issue is irrelevant. We’re talking about the ability to distinguish between what is and isn’t a norm, nothing more.

Quote:

Quote:

I never said that there wasn’t discrimination. I’m saying that for the purpose of marriage, there isn’t now.

And you are wrong because there is an implied "Heterosexual" tacked onto the term "marriage" that is not there in reality.

By “in reality” you mean legally, right? Anyway, no, being heterosexual is not a requirement for marriage.

Quote:

Quote:

Not what I meant, you know that, but still true nonetheless. That’s the funny thing about all this. It’s purely subjective.

Not really, as the legal definition will eventually be soldified in the USSC and this will fall into the realm of "they did not actually think this way then did they" as we do with interacial marriage now.

Right, as if that would be the end of the story.

Quote:

On a side note. When I have a long post on either of the computers at work, the lines from a certain point onward will "bounce" as I type.

[/quote]

I thought it was just me and my crazy computer. For posts that take up more lines than the message box, I’ve been having to copy quotes into Word, enter my responses, then paste them into the message box. Triple imbedded quotes drive me insane, but I manage.

Second side note. Are you familiar with an artist named Wyatt Waters? He does watercolors and my wife has fallen in love with his work.

Never heard of him so I ran a google image search using his name. Very, very nice stuff! His work strongly reminds me of that of of Jeanna Jinx, a high school classmate of mine, biologist turned artist. We've also been framing the artwork of our daughter lately. She's wrecking honors courses at the same time she's producing masterpieces. Poetry too, some published.

Going to show Waters's work to my wife and daughter. I like it very much and they'll just love it. Thanks!

Second side note. Are you familiar with an artist named Wyatt Waters? He does watercolors and my wife has fallen in love with his work.

Never heard of him so I ran a google image search using his name. Very, very nice stuff! His work strongly reminds me of that of of Jeanna Jinx, a high school classmate of mine, biologist turned artist. We've also been framing the artwork of our daughter lately. She's wrecking honors courses at the same time she's producing masterpieces. Poetry too, some published.

Going to show Waters's work to my wife and daughter. I like it very much and they'll just love it. Thanks!

Not a problem. We found a Southern Cookbook he illustrated and that started the search for more of his work. I have a couple of his books on the way and a framed poster, but his originals and prints are so small I cannot justify their cost. The first book we found is in the hundreds of dollars for new ones and near that for used ones. It seems that it sold out and was very popular.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

I have an 8x10 acrylic by in my office painted from a photo taken off a river overlook about a mile up the road from where Waters painted his work. It's got the same bridge in it. Jinks did it. http://www.jinksstudio.com

I have an 8x10 acrylic by in my office painted from a photo taken off a river overlook about a mile up the road from where Waters painted his work. It's got the same bridge in it. Jinks did it. http://www.jinksstudio.com

Just down the road from me too.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein